1. On 5-11-1981 truck No. JKN 893 belonging to respondent No. 3 and insured with the petitioner was being driven by respondent No. 2, driver of respondent No. 3, when it hit army vehicle owned by respondent No. 1, the Union of India near Talab Kunjwani, Jammu, on the Jammu-Pathankot National Highway. As a result of the accident the army vehicle of respondent No. 1 was severely damaged and the loss was assessed at Rs. 42,000/-. Respondent No. 1 accordingly filed a suit in this High Court for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 42,000/-. The suit was transferred for disposal in accordance with law to the file of Addl. District Judge, Jammu. The suit was resisted & in the written statements one of the preliminary objections raised was that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for adjudicating the claims of compensation in respect of damage to any property of a third party arising after the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, to the State of Jammu & Kashmir and that the Jurisdiction to decide such claim for damages, if any, vests in the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). On the basis of the preliminary objection, the following preliminary issue was raised :

Whether this court has the jurisdiction to try the suit ? ............O.P. D.

The learned Addl. District Judge vide his order dated 8-4 1986 decided the preliminary issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant holding that the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit filed by respondent No. 1. Aggrieved, the petitioner (defendant No 3) filed this revision petition.

2 Mr. J.L. Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that since section 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal after the constitution of that Tribunal for that area, therefore the jurisdiction to adjudicate claim for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicle or damages to any property of a third party so arising or both are cognizable by the Tribunal under section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, & the institution of the suit in the Civil court was not authorised by law.

3. Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No; 1, however, submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was applied to the State of Jammu & Kashmir by the Central Laws (Extension) Act, 1968 and there is nothing to show that the subsequent amendment could become automatically applicable to Jammu & Kashmir and since section 110(1) was amended in 1969, to include the damage to property of a third cognizable by a Tribunal, the claim for such compensation could be preferred only in the Civil court. Alternatively, he argued that by virtue of the proviso to section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, where a claim includes a claim for compensation in respect of damage to property exceeding Rs. 2,000/-, it is at the option of the claimant that he may institute a claim in a civil court for adjudication and if he does so, the claims tribunal would have no jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to such claim and that in the instant case, the damage involved having exceeded Rs. 2000/- the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has exercised his option correctly and the suit was cognizable by a civil court.

4. Before considering the controversy on merits as raised at the bar, it would be appropriate to deal with the submission of Mr. J.P. Singh relating to the extension of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. The said Act had not been extended to the State of Jammu & Kashmir till the promulgation of the Central Laws (Extension to Jammu & Kashmir) Act, 1968. Extension Act, according to the preamble, was enacted to provide for the extension of certain central laws to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. By virtue of section 2 of the Extension Act which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document